R.J.SINGH, j. - (1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 27-9-2004 passed by Additional Commissioner, Kanpur allowing the restoration application and recalling its previous order dated 1-8-2001 in a case under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and seen the papers. The learned Counsel for the revisionist argued that the Court below has failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly and acted arbitrarily in allowing the restoration. He further argued that a valuable right has accrued in favour of the present applicant and as such order cannot be set aside without considering the sufficient cause.
(3.) THE learned Additional Commissioner has simply allowed the restoration application and recalled the order dated 1-8-2001 which was passed in absence of the parties. I do not see any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the Court which may call for any interference by this Court. Both the parties have still ample opportunity for hearing and adducing their evidences in support of their case and the case would be decided on merits in accordance with law. There is no need for any interference in the order passed by the Court below.;